Face Covering in Public in Canada

[betsy]

It certainly changed the West. Mind you, places like Russia and India have had far more casualties than Western countries due to terrorism.

At any rate, I don't see how our notions of freedom should change because religious maniacs had a few successful strikes, more due to the failure of Western intelligence than to anything else. And you cannot certainly expect any rational person to believe that banning face veils will stem terrorist attacks.

Some places deal with certain kind of problems in their own way. And at times the measure they apply isn't so pleasant.

I lament to see our notion of freedom changing....but changing it is, unfortunately because of worldwide terrorism....a reality we cannot deny no matter how we wish it ain't so. The disruption of our freedom as we knew it must be a considered victory for the enemy.

Banning the face veils will not stop terrorism. Of course not. But tell me, why should we make it easier for them to strike and kill/maim?

Your opinion regarding the burqua must mean you approve that ski masked people be allowed in banks....or even your children's schoolyard?

I ask you, should a masked person be allowed to enter your child's school? Do you think they shouldn't be asked for id....their faces seen to match any id photos they produce? I am truly interested to hear your answer.

[ToadBrother]

..but the "state" does have the power to tell us what to wear in several other contexts, from safety to indecent exposure. It is not clear to me why religious practices would be immune from such public regulation.

Let's review the kind of limitations we're talking about. Obscenity laws generally are seen, providing they are not overreaching, as reasonable infringements on liberties (ie. public nudity is forbidden, though private nudity, in strip clubs or private nude beaches generally cannot be infringed upon). Health and safety forbids driving in bare feet or going into restaurants without shoes or shirts, that sort of thing. One can see how restrictions to access banking or government services for those whose faces are hidden certainly would fall under that. The general theme, both in Canada and the US, and likely the Western world in general, is that you moderate clothing based upon a fairly narrow set of guidelines. In that case, these full veils certainly, so far as getting a driver's license, going to bank, and so forth, could be restricted. But walking down a public street? Sitting a public park? I think both the US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would not support laws attempting to outright ban niqabs and other such veils in public places. I think most of those pushing these laws know that as well, but like all sorts of populist laws, the point is not the law, but rather to gain support from the empty heads like Mr. Canada.

But for me the notion isn't even that, it's the idea that, other for a very narrow set of restrictions, we would authorize the state to tell women that they couldn't wear these veils, to infringe not just on what I view as a personal liberty, but on a religious liberty. So far as I can tell, no attacks have been committed by veiled women, and at best we can say some co-religionists have done so.

I despise the veils, but I cannot find a single argument in favor of banning them that can sit within my views of basic liberties.

[Remiel]

TB supports the veil thereby supporting women being classified as property and chattel. This is very simple., you cannot have one without the other TB just like the old song goes. At least you've finally come down from your high long enough to say that places where security are a concern like airports, banks and government building the veil should be banned from. I would hope your list includes our courts and schools as well.

If we're to separate Church and State fully as you support then that means teachers aren't allowed to be veiled either. I wouldn't want a veiled teacher teaching my kids. I'd yank them quick from there. However we're Catholic and only Catholics are allowed to teach in Catholic Schools. Thank God, praise Jesus along with our most revered Mother for that one.

A person such as you who advocates the murder of their opponents has no business praising Jesus.

[betsy]

sorry. already posted.

Edited August 4, 2010 by betsy

[dre]

Some places deal with certain kind of problems in their own way. And at times the measure they apply isn't so pleasant.

I lament to see our notion of freedom changing....but changing it is, unfortunately because of worldwide terrorism....a reality we cannot deny no matter how we wish it ain't so. The disruption of our freedom as we knew it must be a considered victory for the enemy.

Banning the face veils will not stop terrorism. Of course not. But tell me, why should we make it easier for them to strike and kill/maim?

Your opinion regarding the burqua must mean you approve that ski masked people be allowed in banks....or even your children's schoolyard?

I ask you, should a masked person be allowed to enter your child's school? Do you think they shouldn't be asked for id....their faces seen to match any id photos they produce? I am truly interested to hear your answer.

I lament to see our notion of freedom changing....but changing it is, unfortunately because of worldwide terrorism....a reality we cannot deny no matter how we wish it ain't so. The disruption of our freedom as we knew it must be a considered victory for the enemy.

This whole idea that we should make reactionary changes to our society and values, in response to a grossly over hyped threat is just horse shit. As is the whole "new world after 911" slogan / talking point.

I ask you, should a masked person be allowed to enter your child's school? Do you think they shouldn't be asked for id....their faces seen to match any id photos they produce? I am truly interested to hear your answer.

Pretty much everyone has already weighed in on that. Yes... its reasonable to ask someone to remove an article of clothing that partially or complete obscures the face for the purposes of IDing them, or taking a driver license photo, etc. Same goes for dark sunglasses and so on.

But tell me, why should we make it easier for them to strike and kill/maim?

How does having a face covering make it easier for them to do that? You cant hide a bomb behind it... how about we force muslims to wear tight spandex so we can see if theyre wearing a suicide belt... I mean if were gonna let trumped up threat frighten us into abandoning our values at least lets do something usefull.

[dre]

A person such as you who advocates the murder of their opponents has no business praising Jesus.

Nor does any person with a vaguely firm grip on reality.

[betsy]

I despise the veils, but I cannot find a single argument in favor of banning them that can sit within my views of basic liberties.

Just to be clear that we are not talking of ordinary veils that covers the head....we're talking of full-face and head-to-toe coverings.

[ToadBrother]

Other places deal with certain problems in their own special way. Sometimes, the measure they apply would make you and I cringe.

I too lament that our notions of freedom should change because of lunatics....but changed they did. It's a reality and cannot be denied no matter how much we wish it ain't so.

I'm still not seeing a connection between face veils and 9-11, other than the very dubious one that extremist Islamists piloted planes into buildings and more arch-conservative fundamentalist Muslims demand these full veils. All in all, even in the Islamic world, such veils are the minority, the largest Muslim states like Pakistan, Indonesia and yes, even Iran, not requiring it.

Yes, banning veils in public places will not stop terrorism (please take note that I emphasize "public places"). But why should we make it any easier for them?

That seems an argument for restricting all sorts of freedoms. It's a slippery slope argument. Liberty means accepting risk. People with freedom can do bad things. We deal with consequences of freedom, not cut freedom off in the vain hope that we will ultimately be safer.

Banning veils is simply religious bigotry dressed up as public safety. It's precisely the same logic that lead to the internment of the Japanese in WWII, "Yeah, we know that a free society doesn't lock people up because of where they came from, but this is war, and we have to be safe."

By your reason it seems that you approve of ski-masked people inside banks, government buildings or even your children's school yard? You think someone wearing a ski mask be allowed to enter your child's school....and that person should not be forced to reveal his/her face for proper identification?

You're as bad as Mr. Canada. I never said there weren't reasonable restrictions on where the veil could be worn. I have to ask, have you actually read what I wrote? I mean, you managed to quote pieces of my post, but left out the parts that dealt with banks, government buildings and the like. I do love the part about schools, because those who would seek to destroy liberty so often use "the children" as the rationale. You've used both in one post, "the terrorists win" and "for the sake of the children."

Perhaps you don't value liberty as much as I do. I have a passing familiarity with how much effort and blood was shed to achieve our liberties, and I have to say, it's worth the very slight increase in risk that face veils on an exceedingly small minority of Muslim women represents.

Edited August 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Just to be clear that we are not talking of ordinary veils that covers the head....we're talking of full-face and head-to-toe coverings.

I am well aware of what we're talking about. It doesn't change my view one little bit.

I find tattoos horrible looking, raising the risks of communicable diseases, and frankly think they represent greater harm to individuals and the wider public than the outfits in question, but I'm not advocating banning them either, because I value a person's individual right to wear or decorate themselves as they will much more than I value my own personal discomfort at seeing them. That's because I realize the real problem here is my prejudices.

[Remiel]

Nor does any person with a vaguely firm grip on reality.

I do not know about that. I do not think secular respect for the teachings attributed to Jesus is any worse than respect for anyone else on the basis of their morality. Not only religious figures get praised.

[Remiel]

You're as bad as Mr. Canada.

Whoa! Hold on here. That is not the sort of accusation you should make lightly, and without meaning the full comparison. After all, no one says, " You're as bad as Hitler, " just because they think someone is insane. They generally have to be a mass-murdering psychopath to go with it.

[ToadBrother]

Whoa! Hold on here. That is not the sort of accusation you should make lightly, and without meaning the full comparison. After all, no one says, " You're as bad as Hitler, " just because they think someone is insane. They generally have to be a mass-murdering psychopath to go with it.

I should have clarified that I meant within the context of this thread, and not in general. But both their justifications are ultimately the same, although Mr. Canada is usually far less capable or willing to bury his prejudices, preferring to wear them on his chest like some sort of bizarre totemic symbol of strength.

[bloodyminded]

TB supports the veil thereby supporting women being classified as property and chattel.

TB does not "support the veil," or at any rate has never stated this.

He supports people's right to wear it.

Surely you see the distinction?

[bloodyminded]

TB supports the veil thereby supporting women being classified as property and chattel. This is very simple., you cannot have one without the other TB just like the old song goes. At least you've finally come down from your high long enough to say that places where security are a concern like airports, banks and government building the veil should be banned from. I would hope your list includes our courts and schools as well.

If we're to separate Church and State fully as you support then that means teachers aren't allowed to be veiled either. I wouldn't want a veiled teacher teaching my kids. I'd yank them quick from there. However we're Catholic and only Catholics are allowed to teach in Catholic Schools. Thank God, praise Jesus along with our most revered Mother for that one.

God didn't determine that only Catholics can teach in Catholic schools. Catholics determined it.

[bloodyminded]

..but the "state" does have the power to tell us what to wear in several other contexts, from safety to indecent exposure. It is not clear to me why religious practices would be immune from such public regulation.

They're not. The veil does not contravene any existing laws about dress.

[ToadBrother]

They're not. The veil does not contravene any existing laws about dress.

What's more, the state's ability to control what people wear is not infinite in scope.

[bloodyminded]

Pretty much everyone has already weighed in on that. Yes... its reasonable to ask someone to remove an article of clothing that partially or complete obscures the face for the purposes of IDing them, or taking a driver license photo, etc. Same goes for dark sunglasses and so on.

Yes, for Christ's sake! ALL of us have agreed with this point--and yet some folks keep bringing it up as if it's a "gotcha!" moment.

Any idea on recent stats for literacy rates? Just curious.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, for Christ's sake! ALL of us have agreed with this point--and yet some folks keep bringing it up as if it's a "gotcha!" moment.

Any idea on recent stats for literacy rates? Just curious.

I'm beginning to wonder, myself. There are two posters here at least who don't seem to read my posts, and insist I believe things that I don't. Either they can't or won't read, or perhaps they don't care in the least what I actually say.

[Mr.Canada]

TB, well that's just it. The veil isn't a form of religious attire, it's a cultural one. A culture which holds women to a standard which is below a mans. Why should we embrace that? It doesn't make any sense what so ever. Not every cultural practice is good for Canada and we must protect ourselves from the harmful ones. It shouldn't even be any debate at all.

These are dangerous times we live in. We cannot allow extremists in Canada to potentially hide behind veils gaining access to areas they shouldn't be allowed to be in. Veiled people(could be men or women) boarding aircraft without having to prove their identity is just plain dangerous and downright irresponsible. However that is what the left has done, it has made everyone afraid to openly speak their minds for fear of being sued. It's terrible that we've traded common sense for political correctness.

Muslim extremists will attack the US again, perhaps even Canada. Make no mistake about it, 9/11 wasn't the last time that Muslim terror will sweep our lands. There are Muslim extremists in Canada as we speak, we mustn't allow them to hide and carry out bombing while veiled, it's just far too dangerous and too easily exploitable to allow to continue.

[ToadBrother]

TB, well that's just it. The veil isn't a form of religious attire, it's a cultural one. A culture which holds women to a standard which is below a mans. Why should we embrace that? It doesn't make any sense what so ever. Not every cultural practice is good for Canada and we must protect ourselves from the harmful ones. It shouldn't even be any debate at all.

I don't buy this argument at all. There is no single orthodox view in Islam. Yes, some mullahs say it isn't required, and even in Iran, an extremely conservative state, the full face coverings are not required (I believe the hair being covered is the main requirement), but just because some, or more to the point, most Islamic theologians do not view it as a religious requirement does not diminish the fact that clearly some people view it as one. And who is the state to declare what the orthodoxy of anyone's religious beliefs are.

These are dangerous times we live in. We cannot allow extremists in Canada to potentially hide behind veils gaining access to areas they shouldn't be allowed to be in. Veiled people(could be men or women) boarding aircraft without having to prove their identity is just plain dangerous and downright irresponsible. However that is what the left has done, it has made everyone afraid to openly speak their minds for fear of being sued. It's terrible that we've traded common sense for political correctness.

Can you show me a single incident of a veiled woman doing any of these things?

It's ever the case that those that hate liberty will use safety as their prime motive to attack it, but I don't actually believe there is even a quantifiable risk here. But go ahead, tell me about all the veiled women in Canada robbing banks and blowing up buildings.

Muslim extremists will attack the US again, perhaps even Canada. Make no mistake about it, 9/11 wasn't the last time that Muslim terror will sweep our lands. There are Muslim extremists in Canada as we speak, we mustn't allow them to hide and carry out bombing while veiled, it's just far too dangerous and too easily exploitable to allow to continue.

The extremists that perpetrated 9-11, the London and Madrid attacks weren't wearing niqabs.

You're just looking for a justification for your prejudice.

Edited August 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

TB, well that's just it. The veil isn't a form of religious attire, it's a cultural one. A culture which holds women to a standard which is below a mans. Why should we embrace that?

It's not about embracing it. I don't embrace Mark Steyn's views--in fact, I find him petty and stupid but with decent powers of articulation, basically Ann Coulter with better writing skills. But I signed a petition written by local Young Conservatives, because I thought his being brought up like a criminal before the HRC was offensive and opposed to what I think our society should be.

I get the feeling that if your politics were a bit different, you'd be howling for Steyn's legal blood.

There are Muslim extremists in Canada as we speak, we mustn't allow them to hide and carry out bombing while veiled, it's just far too dangerous and too easily exploitable to allow to continue.

The biggest terrorist attacks all were done quite successfully without any veils.

[edit: that jerk TB beat me to it again.]

Edited August 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

Another thing to consider is where could veils and other such coverings be worn at work. Remember... people spend most of their time either at home or at work, perhaps a few hours of commute/walking throughout the day. In their homes, no one is proposing denying women the right to wear whatever they want. But what about at work? Should a teacher be allowed to teach while the students cannot see her face? Should a bank teller be allowed to sit behind her desk with a veil on so customers cannot see her face? Should a bus driver be allowed to drive a bus while wearing a veil? A nurse? A doctor? A police officer? An office worker?

None of these jobs, and many others, would be appropriate to be carried out by an individual whose face is hidden.

So what exactly are we talking about here? The right of women to wear a veil on their commute to and from work? Should a car driver be allowed to have their face covered, so they can easily escape from an accident and go unrecognized by witnesses? And anyway face coverings likely restrict vision so should not be worn while driving. Perhaps when they go shopping? But you may well have to take off your face covering when paying, if you are doing so with a card.

So what exactly are we talking about? When a woman decides to go for a walk? Like maybe a few hours a week? I think once you realistically examine all the situations where it is inappropriate to wear face coverings anyway, this becomes so small as to become almost a non issue.

[Mr.Canada]

TB, that is just the point, it could be a man or a woman beneath the burka we don't know. The idea of suicide bombers walking around with their explosives hidden with their burka scares me to death. They can walk onto any plane, into any school into any government building and blow themselves up because we're too scared to ask them to remove it to ID them to ensure the rest of us are safe from Muslim terror.

Here is a clipping of a burka clad suicide bomber, this happened a couple weeks ago. There was one of a woman in Israel as well, I'll try to find it for you.

Male suicide bombers disguised in womens' burqas stormed government buildings and security headquarters in co-ordinated attacks which killed a dozen people and injured 22 others in eastern Afghanistan yesterday.

Bombers wearing burqas, male and female, have struck on a number of occasions in Iraq. The modus operandi is, however, new to Afghanistan where, due to religious sensibilities, women in traditional dresses face less risk of being searched than in Iraq.

"This is a new type of tactic. They wanted to kill innocent people as well as government officials," he said.

Source

This type of violence can happen in Canada, please don't cause you and your ilks naiveté cost innocent Canadian lives. When it does happen you'll blame the Tories for it I'm sure. It'll be all Mike Harris' fault.

[Remiel]

Another thing to consider is where could veils and other such coverings be worn at work. Remember... people spend most of their time either at home or at work, perhaps a few hours of commute/walking throughout the day. In their homes, no one is proposing denying women the right to wear whatever they want. But what about at work? Should a teacher be allowed to teach while the students cannot see her face? Should a bank teller be allowed to sit behind her desk with a veil on so customers cannot see her face? Should a bus driver be allowed to drive a bus while wearing a veil? A nurse? A doctor? A police officer? An office worker?

None of these jobs, and many others, would be appropriate to be carried out by an individual whose face is hidden.

So what exactly are we talking about here? The right of women to wear a veil on their commute to and from work? Should a car driver be allowed to have their face covered, so they can easily escape from an accident and go unrecognized by witnesses? And anyway face coverings likely restrict vision so should not be worn while driving. Perhaps when they go shopping? But you may well have to take off your face covering when paying, if you are doing so with a card.

So what exactly are we talking about? When a woman decides to go for a walk? Like maybe a few hours a week? I think once you realistically examine all the situations where it is inappropriate to wear face coverings anyway, this becomes so small as to become almost a non issue.

Empirically speaking, how many of the people who wear the veils in Canada have actually pursued employment?

[bloodyminded]

Another thing to consider is where could veils and other such coverings be worn at work. Remember... people spend most of their time either at home or at work, perhaps a few hours of commute/walking throughout the day. In their homes, no one is proposing denying women the right to wear whatever they want. But what about at work? Should a teacher be allowed to teach while the students cannot see her face? Should a bank teller be allowed to sit behind her desk with a veil on so customers cannot see her face? Should a bus driver be allowed to drive a bus while wearing a veil? A nurse? A doctor? A police officer? An office worker?

None of these jobs, and many others, would be appropriate to be carried out by an individual whose face is hidden.

So what exactly are we talking about here? The right of women to wear a veil on their commute to and from work? Should a car driver be allowed to have their face covered, so they can easily escape from an accident and go unrecognized by witnesses? And anyway face coverings likely restrict vision so should not be worn while driving. Perhaps when they go shopping? But you may well have to take off your face covering when paying, if you are doing so with a card.

So what exactly are we talking about? When a woman decides to go for a walk? Like maybe a few hours a week? I think once you realistically examine all the situations where it is inappropriate to wear face coverings anyway, this becomes so small as to become almost a non issue.

Yes, and this would all be the wearer's issue.

This is certainly no argument whatsoever for the draconian notion that it should be outlawed.